Two nurses denied midwife jobs as midwives for refusing to carry out abortions have lost their legal bid to take Sweden to a top European court for violating their religious beliefs.
Ellinor Grimmark and Linda Steen had told the European court of human rights (ECHR) that being denied employment due to their beliefs against abortion was an illegal breach of their rights to freedom of religion and conscience.
Instead of ruling one way or the other, the court declined to take up the case, with a panel finding that Swedish authorities had acted lawfully.
Thursday’s decision was described as “disappointing” but “quite expected” by Steen, while Grimmark said there should be room for all opinions in a democratic society.
The ruling was applauded by a sexual health organisation, which said the case had attempted to “chip away” at abortion rights.
“It is not a human right for nursing staff to refuse to provide care,” said Hans Linde of the Swedish non-profit sex education organisation RFSU. “This is an important decision that in the long term will help to protect women’s health, the right to good-quality care and to be treated with respect when seeking an abortion.“
The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits around the world over the scope of religious rights at work, from a baker who refused to make a cake with a gay rights message through to clashes over prayer breaks and the wearing of religious symbols.
Both Grimmark and Steen initially worked as nurses then retrained as midwives, but were rejected for jobs after saying their religious beliefs prevented them carrying out abortions. They launched cases against Sweden at the ECHR, claiming authorities fell foul of the European convention on human rights.
The court found both cases were inadmissible to be heard by the EHRC. There is no procedure for an appeal against the decision.
ADF International, the international arm of a US-based Christian group that campaigns for religious freedom, said the outcome had disparagedthe women’s religious beliefs.
“Medical professionals should be able to work without being forced to choose between their deeply held convictions and their careers,” said its deputy director, Robert Clarke. “A positive judgment from the court would have been an important step in the protection of the right to freedom of conscience.”